Commercial Litigation

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), passed in 1925, generally requires courts to look favorably upon all arbitration agreements. In 2011, the Supreme Court upheld an arbitration agreement in a contract for mobile phone services that contained a class action ban. The court ruled that a state law that prevented the class action ban from being enforced was “an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives.”

However, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, which authorizes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to study arbitration agreements in consumer contracts and limit or prohibit them if doing so would be in the public interest and for the protection of consumers. In May 2016, the CFPB issued a proposed rule that would ban arbitration agreements that acted to prevent class action lawsuits and would further establish certain reporting requirements for other arbitrations that are filed between consumers and providers.

Our experts discussed this proposed rule, including the history that led us to this point and the potential impact it will have if it is finalized.

Featuring:

Prof. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 instructs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study “the use of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute . . . in connection with the offering or providing of consumer financial products or services,” and to provide a report to Congress on the same topic. This past March, the CFPB issued its study, pursuant to the statutory requirement. Is the “arbitration study” an anti-arbitration study? Our experts discussed the report and its implications.

Professor Greg Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law discusses the dispute in Kimble v. Marvel, a case argued before the Supreme Court in March. Petitioner Kimble invented and patented a toy. Respondent Marvel contractually agreed to pay royalties on that patent that included a period of time after the expiration of the patent. The Court is being asked to overrule a precedent dating back to 1964 which held such agreements to be unlawful per se.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Are shareholder lawsuits, filed in opposition to proposed corporate mergers or asset acquisitions, on the rise and, even if so, does that indicate a problem? Does the fact that most such lawsuits are quickly settled indicate they have underlying merit? Who are the winners and losers in such lawsuits, and are the interest of shareholders generally served by such lawsuits? How are attorney’s fees calculated? Assuming something is amiss, is there a remedy? Is the opportunity for intervention by an objector useful?

Policy makers on Capitol Hill are poised to press forward with legislation thatpurports to address what some believe is a litigation crisis, driven by so-called non-practicing entities. Others believe the legislation would ultimately undermine important property rights and patent licensing arrangements. The latter group asserts that a growing body of empirical evidence holds that patent litigation rates have not increased significantly and in fact appear to be on the decline. Will the proposed patent legislation address real litigation abuses, and what effect will it have on legitimate patent holders? Is there a responsible way to address patent litigation abuses without hampering patent-based incentives to invest in innovation? What do the answers to these questions mean for the United States efforts to promote strong IP laws abroad?

This panel was part of a conference titled "Patents and Innovation: Addressing Current Issues". The conference was held on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission